MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334689277 · doi:10.1097/hp.0000000000000048

Retention and Excretion of Inhaled 3H and 14C Radiolabeled Methane in Rats

2014· article· en· W2334689277 on OpenAlexaff
Candice Didychuk, P. Burchart, Sara M. Carlisle, Richard B. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethaneInhalationChemistryRadiochemistryRadionuclideEnvironmental chemistryInhalation exposureTritiated waterTritiumEnvironmental scienceToxicityMedicineNuclear physicsOrganic chemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A radiological concern for workers at heavy water reactor nuclear facilities is the hazard presented by tritium (H) and C. Radioactive methane is one of many potential H and C containing chemicals to which Nuclear Energy Workers (NEWs) may be exposed. Current dosimetric models for H- and C-methane, recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), are based on the assumption that 1% of methane is absorbed following its inhalation. Of this 1%, all H is converted immediately to tritiated water and C is converted immediately to CO2 (50%) and organically bound carbon (50%). In the study, rats were exposed to methane standards (H-methane and C-methane) mixed with breathing air to give a final concentration of 0.27% methane and resulting in final activity concentrations of 4.2 GBq m and 0.88 GBq m for H and C, respectively. This corresponds to exposure estimates of 580 kBq g and 120 kBq g. Simultaneous exposure to H- and C-methane allowed for the direct comparison of the retention of these radionuclides and removed uncertainties concerning their relative uptake and retention. The results demonstrate that the total methane uptake from the inhaled dose was threefold less than the 1% methane uptake predicted by the ICRP dosimetric models for H- and C-methane, with the H concentration being substantially higher than anticipated in the liver. This study provided data suggesting that current ICRP dosimetric methane models overestimate the fraction of H- and C-methane that is absorbed following inhalation and assisted in providing information to better understand the metabolism of inhaled H and C radiolabeled methane.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PhysicsSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207